Whiteparish Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access care when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the practice website. For example, 85% of respondents described their overall experience of contacting the practice as good, compared to a national average of 73%. In response to feedback from people using the service, leaders had implemented several initiatives to improve access.

Leaders routinely monitored telephone access performance through the review of key performance indicators (KPIs), including call volumes, call answering performance and abandoned calls. They used this information to identify trends, understand periods of increased demand and assess the impact of changes made to improve access.

A quality improvement project was completed to review access arrangements and implement a clinically governed total triage model using an online consultation and triage system that helps people access the most appropriate care based on their needs. The project was undertaken in response to increasing demand, growing administrative workload, repeated contacts and difficulties directing people to the most appropriate clinician at the first point of contact. An appointment journey audit reviewed 27 patient journeys and found these generated 115 separate interactions, despite requiring only 53 clinical appointments. The audit identified duplicated contacts, avoidable delays and administrative inefficiencies. In response, leaders introduced GP-led clinical triage at the first point of contact, redesigned clinical workflows and appointment rotas, established an Acute Care Team and configured their electronic triage system to support local pathways and escalation processes. The project aimed to improve access, reduce unnecessary contacts, make better use of the multidisciplinary team and ensure people were directed to the right clinician first time. Ongoing monitoring and re-audits were planned to assess the impact on access, workload, patient experience and safety.

Following implementation, an initial impact assessment was undertaken during the first 15 working days of using their electronic triage system. The review found that incoming telephone calls had reduced by 34.3%, while 892 requests had been submitted through the digital platform. Outgoing telephone calls increased by 44.3%, which supported leaders’ view that the model was enabling staff to manage more follow-up and proactive contact with people through a more structured approach. Leaders concluded that their electronic triage system was supporting a shift away from high-volume, reactive telephone contact, moving towards a blended model of digital and telephone communication, with more people using digital methods to contact the practice. Further monitoring was planned to assess the longer-term impact on patient access, staff workload and experience of care.

A range of initiatives had also been implemented to improve access to medicines for people living in rural communities and those unable to collect medicines during normal opening hours.

Leaders reviewed the impact of the 24-hour dispensing collection machine introduced in July 2024 as part of efforts to improve access for people who were unable to collect medicines during normal opening hours. The review showed increasing use of the machine, with registered users rising from 1,136 in July 2024 to 1,875 by July 2026. Collection volumes also remained high, with more than 900 collections recorded in multiple months and 1,235 collections recorded in June 2026. This demonstrated that the service was meeting a need within the local population by providing greater flexibility in how and when people could access their medicines.

The review also showed that average collection times had improved, reducing from around 41 hours in July 2024 to around 30 hours by July 2026, despite increased use of the service. Leaders identified that the scheme supported people to collect medicines at a time that suited their individual circumstances, including outside normal opening hours, helping to reduce barriers to access for those with work, caring or other commitments.

Additional arrangements had been developed to support people living in rural communities. This included enabling people to collect prescribed medicines from designated local village shops. People wishing to use the scheme were required to complete a medication collection request and patient agreement form, demonstrating their consent to the arrangement and confirming their chosen collection point.

Leaders had completed a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and considered the information governance and confidentiality risks associated with the scheme. A privacy notice was available which explained how personal information would be used, shared and protected. Only the minimum information necessary to facilitate medicine collection was shared with the chosen collection point. Village shop staff did not have access to people's medical records and did not retain records relating to medicine collection.

Arrangements were in place to protect confidentiality, including the use of sealed medication packaging, limiting information sharing to the minimum necessary, providing confidentiality and data protection training, and maintaining procedures for managing lost, damaged or uncollected medicines. Spot checks and mystery shopping exercises were undertaken by service leaders to support quality assurance and service improvement. Leaders had also provided clear information about the collection schemes and associated privacy arrangements, helping people to make informed choices about how they accessed their medicines.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the needs of the local population, including members of the Traveller community and people with low literacy levels, and understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care. They adapted communication methods where required, including the use of easy-read information and alternative methods of contact. Reasonable adjustments were made to support people to access care and treatment in a way that met their individual needs. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register with the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and members of the Traveller community.

Staff explained how records were appropriately coded to identify people’s needs, preferences and communication requirements. This helped ensure relevant information was available to staff when providing care and treatment, supporting continuity of care and reducing the need for people to repeat their circumstances or explain their needs on multiple occasions. Staff also used systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.